Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Add section about defining "Test Dependencies"
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:44:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Add section about defining "Test Dependencies" by Andrew Savchenko
1 On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 10:11 PM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 14:24:02 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote:
4 > > PMS does not specify that behavior (skipping src_test with USE=-test).
5 > > It is better to define the requrement explicitly rather than relying
6 > > on a Portage-specific behavior.
7 >
8 > Then PMS should be fixed. Putting useless code in thousands
9 > of ebuilds due to bureaucratic reasons is ridiculous. Having strict
10 > conformance to the PMS is good, but common sense should still be
11 > considered.
13 I disagree with your opinion. Adding one line of code to many ebuilds
14 is not a crazy idea, and it doesn't need to happen overnight. Adding
15 RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" is certainly not harmful.
17 The advice given in the devmanual should agree with PMS. I think PMS
18 is unlikely to change; if it does, the devmanual can be updated to
19 match.
21 Personally, I would not like to see a change in PMS in this regard. I
22 think controlling tests via USE conditionals in RESTRICT is a nice way
23 to avoid hard-coding the meaning of individual USE flags into PMS.
24 It also gives the ebuild author more flexibility. For example, he
25 could put something like this in RESTRICT if some exotic "foo" feature
26 causes tests to fail:
28 RESTRICT="foo ( test )"